IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos.47734-36/2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
A R SHIVA PRASAD S/O A.S.RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS AGRICULTURIST DWARAKA, SCHOOL ROAD MADIKERI-571201 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. N .RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADV.) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERIVCES MINISTRY OF FINANCE PARLIMENT STREET JEEVANDEEP BUILDING NEW DELHI-100001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. UNION OF INDIA BY MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & CO-OPERATION KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-100001 BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001 BY ITS SECRETARY.
4. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICE (ZONAL OFFICE) NO.65, ST.MARKS ROAD BANGALORE-560001.
5. STATE BANK OF INDIA MADIKERI BRANCH COLLEGE ROAD MADIKERI-571201 KODAGU DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.C. SHASHIKANTH, ASG. FOR R1 & R2, SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA. FOR R3, SRI. M. NAGAPRASANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W MS. SUVARNA.M.L., ADV. FOR R4 AND R5 ) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION DT.5.9.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-R & QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R-4 GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER DT.22.8.2008 VIDE ANNEXURE THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 5.9.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-R.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had taken two loans from the respondent No.5, Rs.64 Lakhs and Rs.49 Lakhs for his floriculture. An amount of Rs.12,99,199/- was overdue in the loan amount of Rs.64 Lakhs. The petitioner was eligible for debt relief of the said amount under the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, which was announced by the Central Government. Pursuant to that, the petitioner had given representation to the Bank to consider his case under the Scheme. His request was rejected by the Grievance Redressal Officer vide order dated 22.8.2008 (Annexure-H). Subsequently, he gave representation to the Bank on 3.7.2008 to consider his case under the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. Since, his representation has not been considered, he filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.11772/2009 (GM-RES). During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner had paid the entire loan amount and closed his account. This Court on 20.11.2012 in W.P.No.11772/2009 without expressing any opinion on merit has ordered that the concerned authority shall consider and decide it on merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the order. All Contentions of the petitioner are kept open. Pursuant to the order dated 20.11.2012, the respondent No.2 has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 5.9.2014 (Annexure-R). The Grievance Redressal Officer has passed an order on 22.08.2008 on the representations submitted by the petitioner. This Court has passed an order on 20.11.2012 directing the respondent Authority to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 03.07.2008 independently in accordance with law. By the impugned order (Annexure-R) dated 05.09.2014 the second respondent Authority has rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 03.07.2008 on the ground that the Grievance Redressal Officer has already disposed of the representation of the petitioner and accordingly held that the present representation dated 03.07.2008 has been considered and disposed of.
3. The impugned order (Annexure-R) is contrary to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.11772/2009. The authority has not independently considered the representation of the petitioner dated 03.07.2008. Therefore, the impugned order dated 5.9.2014 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-R is unsustainable. Hence, the following order:
a) The writ petitions are disposed of.
b) The impugned order dated 5.9.2014 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-R is set aside.
c) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.11772/2009 dated 20.11.2012 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE DM